Ti, introverted logic - What is true and not true in a statement?

[Iwantpeace]

Is Ti good at detecting inconsistencies in what someone says?

[Chae]

If you ever need to take revenge on your LSI, print out all of my +5k annoying posts. Let them appear mysteriously out of nowhere. Like one in the microwave or bathtub where I talk about my false understanding of socionics elements and foreign music nobody knows. Or social justice to bash the law and authority from a moral standpoint. Works wonders on .



(Ignore me fooling around, you just kinda answered yourself already as usual )

[Computer Loser]

If you ever need to take revenge on your LSI, print out all of my +5k annoying posts. Let them appear mysteriously out of nowhere. Like one in the microwave or bathtub where I talk about my false understanding of socionics elements and foreign music nobody knows. Or social justice to bash the law and authority from a moral standpoint. Works wonders on .



(Ignore me fooling around, you just kinda answered yourself already as usual )

You're making us sound like these creepers that pop out of the shadows when conditions are right, who slick back off into the distance when they're not...

...which is pretty accurate lol

[Chae]

You're making us sound like these creepers that pop out of the shadows when conditions are right, who slick back off into the distance when they're not...

...which is pretty accurate lol

The posts should be the ones that appear out of nowhere as part of the trick, not the LSI omg! Jesus take the wheel, I accidentally exposed y'all

[ashlesha]

I notice inconsistencies in values all the time - how actions and words differ (including in myself, like a knot to untie). My general impression is that Ti does this with more explicit information (though wouldn't be inept at doing it with more implicit data just as I'm not completely inept at doing it with facts).

[The Reality Denialist]

What I think:
Ti in ego or super-ego:

Causal-Determinist
Types in supervision ring ILE-LSI-SEE-EII are badassess on this one. Never disturb deterministic chain or else...
I have seen even SEEs correcting LIIs on this one.

Holographical-Panoramic
LIIs are into categorical errors. [I don't know if IEEs are into should be categories which causes supervision.]
I have done some categorical errors on purpose just to get LII reaction out of it. It works.

[Alomoes]

Well, I'm a nitpick, but so is everyone in my family, so no. Although I might be the reason why they are nitpicks. Half the time they're wrong, but they say the same with me. It is hard having a conversation with them.

[CasuaLII]

The fact that someone's tone doesn't match what they're saying doesn't necessarily mean that what they're saying is wrong.

[FDG]

The fact that someone's tone doesn't match what they're saying doesn't necessarily mean that what they're saying is wrong.

Yeah I don´t get that point either...especially say at work, where you still have to deliver no matter what your mood is, you can´t expect people to sound OK all the time...

[Pookie]

I speak in misleading tones constantly. Maybe part of the supervision relations.

[The Reality Denialist]

Let's ask Ms Huxley

[Rebelondeck]

Ti-types are not good at detecting inconsistencies on the fly; they have to go away (mentally) and think about what was said; and when they have time to think about it, they can be superb at detecting logical flaws. ESEs are excellent at detecting factual inconsistencies on the fly but often have difficulties with putting the discrepancies into context so they can get overly argumentative about minor issues. Untruths are sometimes used to make a valid point, and most lapses in memory or outright lies do no harm but ESEs tend to correct regardless. Sometimes corrections can have positive effects but frequently for ESEs, the incorrect fact seems to be more important than the intention or key point of the communication, and this seeming fastidiousness can sometimes kill relations.

a.k.a. I/O

[PrettySavage]

If you ever need to take revenge on your LSI, print out all of my +5k annoying posts. Let them appear mysteriously out of nowhere. Like one in the microwave or bathtub where I talk about my false understanding of socionics psychology elements and foreign classic music nobody knows. Or social justice to bash the law and authority from a moral standpoint. Works wonders on .



(Ignore me fooling around, you just kinda answered yourself already as usual )

Mom, is that you

[Chae]

Mom, is that you

Oh? Yes. Luv ya, daughter

[PrettySavage]

Oh? Yes. Luv ya, daughter

I'm trying to be less prickly and more patient for you, please anticipate a better Sailor in the future

[Chae]

I'm trying to be less prickly and more patient for you, please anticipate a better Sailor in the future

Adore you either way <3 And I will anticipate. Just say what you need.

[PrettySavage]

Adore you either way <3 And I will anticipate. Just say what you need.

Thanks I'll hit you up on the DM PM

[Myst]

Hey Alphas,

Is Ti good at detecting inconsistencies in what someone says?
I am speaking in terms of values, logic, and emotion.
Maybe I am a cynic? As an ESE I often find what people say contradicts what they have said even recently.
It sometimes makes no sense from a logical point of view. Or their tone of voice does not match what they are saying.
Then automatically I think "this makes no sense" or even "this cannot be trusted to be accurate". Maybe this is Ti seeking or weak Ti?

I automatically compare what people say to what they have said before and find errors/flaws (maybe this is Si and Ti)?
Consistency in opinions is important for what they are saying to be credible in that moment.

Thoughts on this? Sorry for the ramble....just trying to understand what this is all about. I find my LSI is commenting on people not making sense often...leads me to think it is a Ti thing.

Eh I skip over the little "inconsistencies" in everyday convos that only result from sloppiness (not writing a PhD dissertation or some mathematical proofs lol). If it results in ambiguity I'll ask for clarification. But otherwise I pay more attention to consistency in terms of actions where that matters. Overall, if someone contradicts themselves in terms of some earlier statement or other earlier data, whether I care depends on if it seems significant or if it's just sloppiness, silly exaggerations etc.

[Alomoes]

Hey Alphas,

Is Ti good at detecting inconsistencies in what someone says?
I am speaking in terms of values, logic, and emotion.
Maybe I am a cynic? As an ESE I often find what people say contradicts what they have said even recently.
It sometimes makes no sense from a logical point of view. Or their tone of voice does not match what they are saying.
Then automatically I think "this makes no sense" or even "this cannot be trusted to be accurate". Maybe this is Ti seeking or weak Ti?

I automatically compare what people say to what they have said before and find errors/flaws (maybe this is Si and Ti)?
Consistency in opinions is important for what they are saying to be credible in that moment.

Thoughts on this? Sorry for the ramble....just trying to understand what this is all about. I find my LSI is commenting on people not making sense often...leads me to think it is a Ti thing.

Yes, although I absolutely never judge anyone by their voice anymore. I used to, and this lead to people developing extremely bad habits, including myself. I didn't even do it that much. Also, it depends on how much I am invested in the situation, and also whether I happen to remember the inconsistency. While my memory is good, I do not have a flawless memory. Also, my mood has a big impact on things.

Oh yeah, you know you do it strongly when you do it to yourself while you are arguing your point, leading to the possible onset of doubt. See, I'm doing it now.

[purplehearts]

sorrows:
You may find an inconsistency but the inconsistency is not explicit, it is embedded within the ethics you are wading through and you have to dig for it. I have said many times that ethics transform seamlessly into logic and vice versa.
There is always some element of ethics in everything... even the strictest scientific reasoning is based on assumptions which prescribe underlying ethics for how science should operate... for example what types of information to consider as scientific evidence.
If a logical type does not recognize the overlap between multiple assumptions they accept (which happens with weak ethics) and one frameworks assumptions conflict with another... these assumptions can be broken down to show a logical inconsistency it just takes more time and it is less direct.
Actually this is why ethical types are called 'rational' types - the fact that ethics can be broken down and rationalized over.
So what you are getting at, as far as I can tell, is that as an ethical type you are rational and logical types are more concerned with surface level logic, which is correct - the ego function always operates on a conscious level, but it does not deal well with unconscious information.... actually if you wanted to identify a flaw in the ego functions that would probably be it - you may unconsciously detect an inconsistency in what they say going back to some other memory you have which they're not remembering.

[Alomoes]

sorrows:
You may find an inconsistency but the inconsistency is not explicit, it is embedded within the ethics you are wading through and you have to dig for it. I have said many times that ethics transform seamlessly into logic and vice versa.
There is always some element of ethics in everything... even the strictest scientific reasoning is based on assumptions which prescribe underlying ethics for how science should operate... for example what types of information to consider as scientific evidence.

And those are called postulates, at least in math.

[Myst]

sorrows:
You may find an inconsistency but the inconsistency is not explicit, it is embedded within the ethics you are wading through and you have to dig for it. I have said many times that ethics transform seamlessly into logic and vice versa.
There is always some element of ethics in everything... even the strictest scientific reasoning is based on assumptions which prescribe underlying ethics for how science should operate... for example what types of information to consider as scientific evidence.

It's often far from seamless.

Btw, I'm curious, can you elaborate on how it's ethics determining what types of information to consider as scientific evidence? You mean ethical guidelines for experimentation?

[Alomoes]

It's often far from seamless.

Btw, I'm curious, can you elaborate on how it's ethics determining what types of information to consider as scientific evidence? You mean ethical guidelines for experimentation?

Yes, I think, I'm not him, so I don't know for certain. I also have another answer. All science is based on faith in the fact that the universe is not a completely random place that occurred out of chance. This can lead to people fitting theories to data and such. For example, if the world did not follow that postulate, then we'd likely be living in real life lsd land where the rules of the universe change at a moment's notice. To clarify, the postulate is that the universe has specific rules of which it follows. The earliest example is that of religion.

[purplehearts]

Myst:
The word "should" is an ethical proposition. What type of evidence SHOULD we accept as scientific evidence - this is an ethical question.

[Myst]

Myst:
The word "should" is an ethical proposition. What type of evidence SHOULD we accept as scientific evidence - this is an ethical question.

Please give me the ethical reasoning behind it.

Yes, I think, I'm not him, so I don't know for certain. I also have another answer. All science is based on faith in the fact that the universe is not a completely random place that occurred out of chance. This can lead to people fitting theories to data and such. For example, if the world did not follow that postulate, then we'd likely be living in real life lsd land where the rules of the universe change at a moment's notice. To clarify, the postulate is that the universe has specific rules of which it follows. The earliest example is that of religion.

Actually it could still be a universe that occurred out of chance. Inductive reasoning can give us the idea that the rules are unchanging: so far they have been reliably observable. Or the idea that this is how observations are consistent logically. Neither of these two reasonings needs religious belief.

[purplehearts]

Please give me the ethical reasoning behind it.

Myst:
The word should is ethical reasoning.
We can break the reasoning down further if you want.

The people who first put science together had to ask themselves: should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal account seriously? Why or why not?
This proposition "should" is part of a larger framework of similar statements which together prescribe a methodology - the scientific method. The method defines what science is - what the purpose of science is, how it behaves...
The method gives guidelines for how scientists should do science. Scientists follow the method to progress science and preserve the integrity of the body of knowledge.

"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence - to preserve the integrity of the body of information and progress science" <- that is an ethical statement.
"...to preserve the integrity of the body of information" is a utilitarian ethic.
"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence" is a deontological ethic.

[Myst]

Myst:
The word should is ethical reasoning...
I can break the reasoning down further if you want.
The people who first put science together had to ask themselves: should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?
This ethical imperative "should" is part of a larger framework of similar statements which together prescribe a methodology - the scientific method. The methodology defines what science is - what the purpose of science is, how it behaves...
The methodology gives guidelines for how scientists should do science. Scientists follow the methodology to progress science and preserve the integrity of the body of knowledge... that is the ethical justification for following the method.

"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence - to preserve the integrity of the body of information and progress science" <- that is an ethical statement.
"Scientists should not use personal accounts as evidence" is a deontological ethic.
"To preserve the integrity of the body of information" is a utilitarian ethic.

Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.

You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...

(Beyond, of course, not violating basic ethics with experimentation blah blah. Such constraints are needed but that's another issue and is not about the way of thinking in science.)

Now, of course, it's possible to link science to human ethics too if you want to have science to serve humanity and I have nothing against this purpose at all (I actually agree with it as long as it does not affect the above type of guidelines of course) and this is even a nice example of logic and ethics interfacing, but it's not required for the above to work.

Just like mathematics also has no ethics in its logic. If you wish to find an ethical purpose for use of mathematics as a science, that's something else.

[Tearsofaclown]

Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.

You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...

(Beyond, of course, not violating basic ethics with experimentation blah blah. Such constraints are needed but that's another issue and is not about the way of thinking in science.)

Now, of course, it's possible to link science to human ethics too if you want to have science to serve humanity and I have nothing against this purpose at all (I actually agree with it as long as it does not affect the above type of guidelines of course) and this is even a nice example of logic and ethics interfacing, but it's not required for the above to work.

Just like mathematics also has no ethics in its logic. If you wish to find an ethical purpose for use of mathematics as a science, that's something else.

I think one could program a computer to make ethical judgements. Kant was basically a computer who based ethics on reason.

They can be based on ethics. Utility is a kind of truth. If religion helps a person with their life, it is logical for them. It helps them.

And James was a radical empiricist. Your experiences are empirical. Your personal experiences. You experienced them. They are a product of your experience. He said experience is "double barreled" this way. We cannot separate empirical outside happenings from the meaning our mind makes out of them.

James' factual statement is that our experience isn't just a stream of data, but a complex process that's full of meaning. We see objects in terms of what they mean to us and we see causal connections between phenomena.

Hume said something similar. Causation is not real. It is a psychological product of man. Take 2 billiards balls. Two objects. We smash them together. There are still only 2 objects. Hume says we create a 3rd thing called causation. But the only empirical things on the table are the balls. Not the theory we wrap around them. Or an apple falling from a tree. There is just the apple, the tree, and the ground. No gravity. Strictly empirically speaking. We create abstractions to explain empirical things but the abstractions are not empirical themselves.

btw, this stance, according to Jung is Te. Ti users believe the idea is the actual thing. Nominalism vs realism. Jung broke down Ti and Te that way. Plato would be a realist. He thinks the idea exists perfect somewhere. Hume takes a Te position. That these are just abstract placeholders and nothing more. Useful fictions.

Realism is the philosophical position that posits that universals are just as real as physical, measurable material. Nominalism is the philosophical position that promotes that universal or abstract concepts do not exist in the same way as physical, tangible material.


And to Plato and others, science cannot be true because truth never changes. Heidegger said all science and facts shine in a borrowed light. What is true today could be false tomorrow. Whereas 2+2=4 is always true and nothing physical in the universe can touch it. It exists in an abstract sphere.

Nietzsche nailed this too. Truth is a sum of human relations. Truth is a custom. A tradition. Like Rorty said.


What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms -- in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.

We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors - in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all...

-Nietzsche

[purplehearts]

Hm, ok, I think differently from this, to me the scientific way of thinking is about the most refined way of objective analysis to get the understanding that most closely matches how things actually work.

You put forward these questions, "should we rely on empirical evidence exclusively? Why or why not? Should we take a personal accounts seriously? Why or why not?". These can all be answered by logic without personal ethics.

So, if the guidelines you mention that are to be followed are logical in terms of them being suitable to get the most refined possible understanding, fine. No personal ethics in this. Honestly, I'd have a serious problem with following guidelines that mix in personal ethics when determining the answers to such questions...

Myst, the ethic IS "to get the most refined personal understanding". That is a utilitarian ethic. Why should we strive for the most refined personal understanding? Why SHOULD we? That is ethical.
Why should we ask the question "what shape is the earth" at all? Why not just continue living like apes, not even considering the question... without science, experiencing the world in a more direct manner? Why refine our understanding? Why should we progress a body of scientific knowledge?
It is an ethical assumption at the foundation of science, no question about it.

[Tearsofaclown]

Depends the context. Wittgenstein said the extent of my language is the extent of my world. Imagine a society whose language consists only of military orders. That is the extent of that world. Those statements are true WITHIN it. Truth is contextual. My favorite quote on truth is "a statement that pays its way". Meaning it goes along with the rules. If you admit certain truths, you are allowed access.

It is a kind of bullshit currency. If you go along with a certain group's jargon you have paid your way with that group. If I go in the Socionics forum and go along with what that group thinks Se is, I have paid my way.

"Truth is merely a compliment paid to sentences seen to be paying their way." -Richard Rorty.

[The Reality Denialist]

One example of ethical rules is Ten Commandments.

I think you could do it via programming at least roughly. It needs exception clauses and evaluating functions (make decisions based on large material from past and it should learn from itself) and clearer definitions.

That is kind of rough though but sometimes courts make huge mistakes and there are insane things going when it comes to drugs and private prisons in US etc. Sometimes it is too important for police egos to chase one hopeless case when with same money you could do much more.

[Exodus]

Ti detects contradictions (differences) between statements or information of the same type, like saying one thing and then saying something else that contradicts it, or doing one thing in a situation and then later doing another thing. Reading tone would involve Fe.

Eh I skip over the little "inconsistencies" in everyday convos that only result from sloppiness (not writing a PhD dissertation or some mathematical proofs lol). If it results in ambiguity I'll ask for clarification. But otherwise I pay more attention to consistency in terms of actions where that matters. Overall, if someone contradicts themselves in terms of some earlier statement or other earlier data, whether I care depends on if it seems significant or if it's just sloppiness, silly exaggerations etc.

This is about maturity more so than Ti.

[Myst]

This is about maturity more so than Ti.

I didn't equate the entire thing there with Ti (which would make no sense anyway, I see these IEs as more complex things than just uniform and general definitions), I simply described what I do. The parts on determining where the inconsistency comes from, or checking it against other earlier data, while determining its place (and its significance in a logical sense) in the entire analysis of the data from now and from earlier would definitely involve aspects of the Ti type of thinking though.

[Singu]

There are no ethics in science... the only assumption in science is that there is a such thing as "objectivity" outside of ourselves. A computer program or an AI or an alien can do science and the result will be the same (even if the method might be different). It really doesn't matter why we think we should be objective or how we should arrive at a method. The entire point of science is to remove all of our subjectivity and subjective viewpoints as much as humanly possible.

[squark]

There are no ethics in science... the only assumption in science is that there is a such thing as "objectivity" outside of ourselves. A computer program or an AI or an alien can do science and the result will be the same (even if the method might be different). It really doesn't matter why we think we should be objective or how we should arrive at a method. The entire point of science is to remove all of our subjectivity and subjective viewpoints as much as humanly possible.

To put it very simply, the value is that objectivity = good. It is better to be objective and accurate. So yes, there are ethical values underpinning the ideals of science. And certain practices that go against those ideals are considered unethical. It is unethical for example to purposely skew the results to get the conclusion you want. Why is it unethical? Because it goes against the ethics of scientific practice. It goes against the ideal and ethic of objectivity.

[Singu]

To put it very simply, the value is that objectivity = good. It is better to be objective and accurate. So yes, there are ethical values underpinning the ideals of science. And certain practices that go against those ideals are considered unethical. It is unethical for example to purposely skew the results to get the conclusion you want. Why is it unethical? Because it goes against the ethics of scientific practice. It goes against the ideal and ethic of objectivity.

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that it's good or better to be objective, it just is. It really doesn't matter what you personally think about it, because the assumption is that it just exists without our considerations on how we feel about it. Sure you can say that "It is better to be objective because that advances knowledge as human species..." "It's good to be accurate so that we don't screw things up" or whatever, that's not the gist of science.

There also some ethical problems and issues with science, such as performing human experimentations. So yes, while that is technically more "objective", the method is considered to be ethically objectionable.

[squark]

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that it's good or better to be objective, it just is. It really doesn't matter what you personally think about it, because the assumption is that it just exists without our considerations on how we feel about it. Sure you can say that "It is better to be objective because that advances knowledge as human species..." "It's good to be accurate so that we don't screw things up" or whatever, that's not the gist of science.

There also some ethical problems and issues with science, such as performing human experimentations. So yes, while that is technically more "objective", the method is considered to be ethically objectionable.

Ugh. Nevermind. I shouldn't have tried. Have a nice day.

[Myst]

I don't think anyone is necessarily saying that it's good or better to be objective, it just is. It really doesn't matter what you personally think about it, because the assumption is that it just exists without our considerations on how we feel about it. Sure you can say that "It is better to be objective because that advances knowledge as human species..." "It's good to be accurate so that we don't screw things up" or whatever, that's not the gist of science.

There also some ethical problems and issues with science, such as performing human experimentations. So yes, while that is technically more "objective", the method is considered to be ethically objectionable.

Yeah, it is not necessary to attach the value judgment of "good/better" to these things and the process of science (scientific method/thinking) is not about ethically based goals at all.

So. What the "other side" doesn't seem to get is that the process of science itself is not dependent on the ethical values, desires, whatever. Human beings do have that side too but that doesn't make the process itself dependent on that. Again, in the real world of course science has to fit with society's goals hence the guidelines on ethical experimentations...

Or another way to put it. A computer can be programmed to have objective methods, purely mathematically based stuff for example, and that computer is not going to have ethical desires installed in its processor at all, yet the methods will execute and run fine. You could add the user who has ethical desires that presses buttons on the keyboard to run some program that will execute the methods and this is where these processes of the computer "interface" with ethics based values/desires. Yet, the functioning of the processes of the computer is not dependent on them.

An "ideal and ethic of objectivity" was also mentioned. That to me is interesting because I do have an ideal of objectivity in my mind but that seems somehow entirely impersonal at the same time. Like it has zero interest in ethical goals and values. I don't mean this in a bad way, it does not actively try to go against ethics either, it's simply fully neutral and separate from ethics. If I try and introduce feelings into it, the ideal becomes different at that point, it's I guess when my brain tries to keep it in sync with the feely side of my brain (that side that computers do not have). Still the objective ideal exists separately too and this is again my point.


PS. Singu, @Tearsofaclown called this type of pov of yours about how the objective ideas just exist Ti recently btw.

[squark]

Maybe this will help, maybe it won't. Probably those who would benefit their understanding the most by reading it won't. So I'll just say that objectivity is a value of science and hope that sinks in somewhere.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/s...c-objectivity/
Edit: This article, which I put in a later post is probably easier overall to grasp and comprehend: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...f-objectivity/

(you'll have to click through to read the remaining sections)

[Myst]

Objectivity is an "ethical value" in as much as the adding of 2 to 2 results in 4 because we "ethically value" the answer to be 4.

End of story.


As for the link. It is interesting with how it discusses different types of values (including ethical ones, as this thread discussed - the other type of value it discusses isn't ethical) and different theories on how value-free or objective science can be, in what different ways, or even if it should be. It however does not give actual support the idea that objectivity for science necessarily involves ethics, not any more support to this idea than to any other. I wouldn't confuse the fact that humans have limitations in their thinking processes with the idea that these thinking processes are necessarily utilizing ethical values. Oh and I find the inclusion of feminist theories and the instrumentalism idea at the end of the article really ridiculous. Unless for the latter we just mean, whatever applied science (utilizing also the understanding produced by academic science) proves to people that their product actually works.

Again that mixing in of feminist bits is real weird tho' with how in some sections it lists feminist theories as alternative interpretations for science. But also at the start where it says "Many central debates in the philosophy of science have, in one way or another, to do with objectivity: confirmation and the problem of induction; theory choice and scientific change; realism; scientific explanation; experimentation; measurement and quantification; evidence and the foundations of statistics; evidence-based science; feminism and values in science."

The bolded: seriously? How is that to do with objectivity? Rhetorical question. At best it's to do with the opposite of it, sure that's a way to relate it...